Step aside God, you have been replaced

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Oh well boys, call off science. It's all over because Whodey thinks its wrong, and he's never wrong....

Is this fair? I have nothing against the scientific method. Put abiogenesis to the scientific method and show me the results.

Originally posted by telerion
[b]They are the ones with the burden of proof since they claim to understand it.

I agree with you. Scientists are working on it. Now if only your apologists would adopt this work ethic.

My position is that it is beyond me.

Doesn't this sort of defeat everything else you have pronounced about life and the living cell?[/b]

I never said that we are incapable of knowing things about a cell. What I have said is that we are incapable of knowing everything about a cell and about the mystery of what makes something living.

Originally posted by whodey
I never said that we are incapable of knowing things about a cell. What I have said is that we are incapable of knowing everything about a cell and about the mystery of what makes something living.

What makes you so certain?

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
What makes you so certain?

-JC

Clearly his mother told him so.

Originally posted by whodey
Why could'nt we make a living cell? It is because only God gives life. I have nothing to prove here. It is science that says cells are creatable outside the realm of God. It is science that says they can produce the building blocks of a cell but just can't get them to live as of yet. It is sceince that says they think they understand how the first cells ...[text shortened]... s that it is beyond me. Who's the irrational one here. All I can say is times a wasten!!!!!

The existance of god is not a parsimonious argument. The most parsimonious argument is that god does not exist and there is nothing particularly special about life. It's definately the theists position to prove god before this argument can be proved. Any deductive argument requires the starting premises to be correct, your premises are not testable, therefore your argument is not strong.

Those that back up abiogeneisis answer me this. If it exists, where is abiogenesis today in the known universe? If you tell me it is because the known universe outside this planet is incapatible with life then where is it on earth? If it is no longer functioning on earth today then why is it on hiatus?

Originally posted by whodey
Is this fair? I have nothing against the scientific method. Put abiogenesis to the scientific method and show me the results.

All the precursory stuff seems very good. You seem to be dismissing that out of hand, though.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The existance of god is not a parsimonious argument. The most parsimonious argument is that god does not exist and there is nothing particularly special about life. It's definately the theists position to prove god before this argument can be proved. Any deductive argument requires the starting premises to be correct, your premises are not testable, therefore your argument is not strong.

And abiogenesis is testable?

Originally posted by whodey
Those that back up abiogeneisis answer me this. If it exists, where is abiogenesis today in the known universe? If you tell me it is because the known universe outside this planet is incapatile with life then where is it on earth? If it is no longer functioning on earth today then why is it on hiatus?

If you can find me a stable, sterile, evironment with an abundant energy input, and the correct chemical constituents for life, that's where you'll find abiogenesis. Strangely enough, based on chemical evidence (from rocks) and projected solar outputs etc, those are exactly the conditions you'd have encountered on early earth.

Originally posted by whodey
And abiogenesis is testable?

Yes, just find me the conditions listed above, or give me $100 million to do it.

(edit; the more important question at this point is, "is testing it, to prove a few random creationists wrong, worth the money?)

Originally posted by Churlant
What makes you so certain?

-JC

Since nothing has been proven, all we have is belief. On the one hand you have those that favor God and on the other those that favor scientific atheism. There is no proof in either camp. I am only expressing my belief.

Originally posted by whodey
Since nothing has been proven, all we have is belief. On the one hand you have those that favor God and on the other those that favor scientific atheism. There is no proof in either camp. I am only expressing my belief.

Whilst trying your best to hamstring scientific endeavour.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, just find me the conditions listed above, or give me $100 million to do it.

So we either need a 100 years for sceince to be advanced enough or a 100 million dollars to fund science to prove abiogenesis? Which is it? I have one even better for ya, all I need is a 100 million dollars and I will go away.

Originally posted by whodey
I love your optimism but in a few hundred years we will all be dead. That sounds to me like an easy out.

The fact that the cell is made entirely from inorganic elements says it's possible to manufacture them.

Originally posted by frogstomp
The fact that the cell is made entirely from inorganic elements says it's possible to manufacture them.

It also says in the Bible that man was made from inorganic matterial. If I recall we were all made from dust. God then "breathed" life into us. I defy any one to try.